Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IEHC 33 ECLI:IE:HC:2018:33 AI generated

High Court dismisses ex parte injunction application to stop deportation pending protection appeal due to timing and abuse.

Case Number IEHC 33
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court dismissed an ex parte injunction application filed by a lawyer on behalf of a Pakistani national facing immediate deportation. The applicant had already been detained for weeks and subsequently applied for readmission to the protection process, which was refused and is currently under appeal. The court rejected the request because the application was made at the last possible moment, just before the scheduled deportation, and deemed the readmission application abusive and intended to delay proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 10 of the Immigration Act 2004; An ex parte injunction to prevent deportation pending an appeal is dismissed where the applicant has already been detained, the readmission application is made after arrest and appears abusive, and the application is lodged at the last possible moment.

Keywords

AI generated
ex parte injunction deportation pending appeal abusive readmission application last possible moment protection process refusal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10 of the Immigration Act 2004

Cited Case Law

AI generated
S.H.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IEHC 829
High Court dismisses asylum applicant's judicial review regarding subsidiary protection re-application procedures.
Onyemaechi v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IEHC 682
Father's repeated deportation applications dismissed due to flagrant immigration breaches and lack of intensive family involvement.
J.A. (Cameroon) v. The Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2017] IEHC 609
High Court dismisses habeas corpus claim regarding deportation detention and suspensive effect of repeated asylum applications.
[2015] IEHC 829
High Court dismisses asylum applicant's judicial review regarding subsidiary protection re-application procedures.
[2017] IEHC 682
Father's repeated deportation applications dismissed due to flagrant immigration breaches and lack of intensive family involvement.
[2017] IEHC 609
High Court dismisses habeas corpus claim regarding deportation detention and suspensive effect of repeated asylum applications.
AI generated
IEHC 95
High Court refuses leave to amend pleadings and challenge subsidiary protection decision due to lack of compelling reasons.
IEHC 504
High Court dismisses asylum applicants' claim for right to remain pending re-application rejection and discharge of deportation injunctions.
IEHC 550
High Court dismisses asylum applicant's judicial review for out-of-time review and deportation order.
IEHC 402
High Court refuses leave for judicial review of deportation due to lack of prejudice despite significant ministerial delay.
IEHC 8
High Court dismisses judicial review of asylum decision where internal relocation finding follows equivocal credibility rejection.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[2018] IEHC 33

THE HIGH COURT

[2018 No. 5 I.A.]

BETWEEN

M.I. (PAKISTAN)

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENT

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 22nd day of January, 2018

1. Before the court is an application by Mr. Garry O’Halloran B.L. on behalf of the applicant for an ex parte injunction in an intended

action by Mr. M.I. who is proposed to be deported at 11.10 am this morning from Dublin to Pakistan. Mr. O’Halloran has applied for an

ex parte injunction without the benefit of an affidavit, or indeed any papers, other than his instructions, which are as follows.

2. Mr. M.I. has apparently been in detention for some weeks, having been a failed protection seeker. Apparently after his detention he

applied for readmission to the protection process. That application was refused on 15th January, 2018, and that refusal is under

appeal.

3. Mr. O’Halloran submits firstly that the applicant is taken by surprise by the proposal to deport him pending an appeal. It seems to

me that he cannot be legitimately surprised because any right to remain by virtue of a re-application only applies to the first instance

process, not to the appellate process (see S.H.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IEHC 829 [2015] 12 JIC 2115, at para.

18).

4. Secondly, it seems that the applicant has already been in considerable jeopardy from at least the point in time at which he was

detained, which was some weeks ago. On that basis it seems to me that to accede to an eleventh-hour injunctive application is

inappropriate.

5. That is particularly so in the present case as the application was made at the latest possible time, with Mr. O’Halloran moving it at

around 11.09 a.m. on a day when the applicant is due to be deported at 11.10 a.m. (presumably that is a boarding time rather than a

take-off time although that was not specified).

6. Finally, the fact that the applicant applied for readmission to the protection process only after his arrest means that the

application for readmission is prima facie abusive and presumptively for the purposes of delay (see S.H.M. v. Minister for Justice and

Equality [2015] IEHC 829 [2015] 12 JIC 2115 para. 20; Onyemaechi v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IEHC 682, para. 3; J.A.

(Cameroon) v. The Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2017] IEHC 609, para. 12).

Order

7. So in all of those circumstances it seems to me the application for an injunction has no merit and I will dismiss it.